Bush's 2009 Budget Cuts $198 Million from SAMHSA

Bush's 2009 Budget Cuts $198 Million from SAMHSA
February 8, 2008

News Feature
By Bob Curley

Drug-prevention advocates and others are raising the alarm over President Bush's FY2009 budget plan, which slashed $198 million from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and calls for elimination of the Recovery Community Support Programs and the STOP Underage Drinking program.

The budget also calls for spending $10 million less on the Drug Free Communities program, a major funding source for many community anti-drug coalitions. "The majority of programs that our field advocates for were recommended for severe cuts," noted Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America in an action alert calling for supporters to contact lawmakers to oppose the cuts. "Only a very small handful of programs were recommended for increases."

Overall, the budget plans calls for increasing defense spending by at least $32 billion, foreign operations by $5.4 billion, and law enforcement and prosecution efforts by $497 million. "The budget invests substantial and needed resources to maintain high levels of military readiness and to continue the transformation of our military to meet the new threats of the 21st Century," Bush said in his budget message to Congress.

But Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, charged Bush with "robbing Peter to pay Paul -- taking critical funds from essential domestic programs to fund the president's pet projects and the president's disastrous war and nation-building adventure in Iraq."

$2.2 Billion Reduction in Discretionary Spending at HHS

Discretionary spending at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be reduced $2.2 billion under the president's plan, even as the overall budget rises $29 billion due to Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory spending. "There are those who will be unhappy with this budget, but given the Medicare system we have, putting off solving the problem is no longer acceptable," said HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt.

In its budget summary, HHS justifies the $198-million decrease in SAMHSA funding by stating, "The budget makes targeted reductions in areas where grantees have not demonstrated improved health outcomes, grant periods are ending, activities can be supported through other funding streams, or efficiencies can be realized."

Major SAMHSA programs slated for cuts or elimination under the president's FY09 budget plan for HHS include its Programs of Regional and National Significance: cut by $250 million, to $639 million. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment's budget would fall by $63 million, while the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention would have $36 million less to spend next year if Bush's plan were approved. The Center for Mental Health Services would be slashed by $126 million.

On the other hand, Bush is calling for level funding of $98 million for his Access to Recovery program, which allows faith-based groups to compete with traditional treatment providers for voucher-driven funding for treatment services; a $40-million increase for treatment drug courts; and $27 million more for screening and brief interventions.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) would receive $1.002 billion, just $1 million more than in FY 2008, while the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) would receive $436.68 million, up $0.4 million relative to FY08. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would face a $412 million budget cut, including the elimination of the $97 million Preventive Health and Human Services Block Grant.

"PART" of the Problem

In many instances, the administration justified its cuts by pointing to its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), used to rate the effectiveness of federal programs. In the budget message for HHS, the administration singled out the Recovery Community Support Program for criticism, saying the program was being eliminated "because services provided, such as manicures and other nontraditional therapies, are not based on evidence-based practices for recovery and grantees have not consistently met all performance measures."

Major programs tabbed as "not performing" by PART also are on Bush's chopping block, including the Social Services Block Grant (a proposed $500 million cut) and the Community Services Block Grant ($1 billion in proposed reductions). However, Bush is calling for a modest $20 million increase in the $1.8 billion Substance Abuse Block Prevention and Treatment Grant, even tough PART called the program "ineffective" because of a lack of independent evaluation and a failure to match formula-based funding to substance-abuse prevalence.

The Legal Action Center reported that the $20 million increase would be used to support "supplemental performance awards" for Block Grant recipients that "demonstrate superior performance in preventing and treatment substance abuse." The National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors noted, "The proposed increase for the SAPT Block Grant can be considered unique in an otherwise very difficult budget year."

As with the block grant, the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was blacklisted by PART, noting that "an independent, long-term evaluation found no connection between the campaign advertisements and youth drug use behavior." Yet the administration is calling for $100 million in funding for the program, up from the $60 million appropriated for the ad campaign in 2008.

Elsewhere beyond HHS, the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities state grants program was once again targeted for reduction, with Bush calling for cutting the school-based prevention program from $295 million in 2008 to $100 million in 2009. "The structure of the program is flawed," according to PART. "It spreads funding too broadly to support quality interventions and fails to target schools and communities in greatest need of assistance."

Bush's budget plan also targets the Department of Education's $32 million Alcohol Abuse Reduction grants program for elimination. SDFSC's national programs budget would increase from $137.7 million in 2008 to $282 million in FY09 under the plan, including $10 million for research-based drug prevention or school safety programs, $77.8 million for grants to school districts for comprehensive, community-wide "Safe Schools/Healthy Students" drug and violence prevention projects, $30 million for school emergency preparedness initiatives, $5 million for initiatives in emergency preparedness for institutions of higher education (IHEs), $11.8 million for school-based drug testing for students, $23.8 million for character education programs in elementary and secondary schools, and $5 million to provide emergency response services to LEAs and IHEs under Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence).

At the Justice Department, funding at the Office of Justice Programs -- which supports Weed & Seed projects as well as some addiction treatment and prevention services -- would be cut steeply, with the Bush budget calling for a 65 percent reduction in state and local criminal-justice programs.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Susan on 03 Mar 08 10:31 PM EST

Maybe the don't want to fight the war on addiction because maybe they are apart of the problem.They only see what benefits their pockets and families not the families that suffer in our country.

Posted by Veli in Renfrew County on 13 Feb 08 10:41 AM EST

Wow, this is really a hot topic! Reading all of the comments, it really boils down to "it's my money, and keep your hands off". Research tells us that harm reduction works - reduce the associated bad outcomes and get the main problem under control. This reduces cost to the health care system. Treating the problem (in this case simply addiction) in order to reduce the burden on society. Nice and easy to say-right? Nice and easy to do-WRONG! When you have people who are brainwashed into believing the marketing companies that say "you are worth nothing unless you have 'it all'", that society will never be able to get away from these problems. When the market economy is the basis for life, people will always lose while a select few will win. One of the people posted that it was bad choices by people that brought them to addiction - this is not entirely true. My brother died from his addicition to oxycontin - and it was the system that let him down. He was a member of the National Ski Team, great athlete, and extraordinary person who ended up graduating through the medical system's prescription answer to health issues to his death. People need to realise they really are responsible for their 'brothers and sisters'. They need to understand that a society that helps and assists those in need (unlike the Hurricane Katrina Fiasco - where was the government there?)creates the strongest society you can develop - yes I did say develop. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and cutting out that link just makes the chain shorter - and you can't do a whole lot with a short chain. So think about this people - what are YOU going to do today to help out that person in need. Can you walk away from the "it's my money and too bad for you" attitude? Are you going to trust that the incoming President is really going to save the day? or are you going to force that person through democracy to act on your behalf like the constitution says they should...

Posted by laurie on 12 Feb 08 12:58 PM EST

I do not agree with cutting any funding for subatance abuse treatment. I teach an associates degree for chemcial dependency counselors and am all about quality treatment. One thing i see fail to be mentioned in most of the postings is lack of a moral compass in the country. I can blame international terrorism, the war, politicians all day long. I am only blame shifting from myself and my personal responsiblity. Our society needs to change one person at a time and stop blaming. There is a lack of strong moral compass in this country. Self-discipline is not being taught, family values are not being taught, personal accountability and responsibility is not being taught. Maybe we should look at our value system and this may improve the alcohol and drug problem when people learn good values and coping skills from birth!

Posted by Frank Winkler on 11 Feb 08 07:48 PM EST

Consider for a moment the historical dynamics of the substance abuse problem. Abuse of substances dates back to the Egyptians and Sumerians-- the very beginnings of civilization itself. Hyroglyphics in the pyramids describe recipes for brewing beer. Use of cannabis dates back to earliest times. The drinking of barley and rye brews tainted with moldy ergot (i.e., lysergic acid diethelomide, or LSD) generated hallucinations for ancient Greeks onward. It was probably the secret recipe used by Brahmins in their "soma"- a concoction used in the early middle ages for religious spiritual purposes but which fell into popular recreational use and deemed so dangerous to society the religious leaders destroyed all known records of its formulation. Mankind has sought methods to alter states of consciousness in every form of society-- be it for religious/ spiritual or recreational purposes, and from whatever source-- mushrooms, tree barks, cactus, plants, animal secretions, alcohol, etc. But in th elast hundred fifty years, we have witnessed a tremendous increase in substances and especially the strength of substances, particularly pharmeceutical formulations, as well as illegally manufactured drugs that put their ancestor substances to shame. Complement that with global instant communications and trafficking, as well as a phenomenal opportunity for insane profit, and we wind up with the siutation we face today. (Who might have believed such a situation possible twoo hundred years ago?) Is there something in our human genetic makeup that in fact drives such desire? This is no small challenge, and it is not one that can simply nbe remedied by increasing dollarts for treatment. The problem has grown geometrically, and significant new strategies are needed to address it, accordingly. If we fail as a society to finally harness this now, imagine what it might well become in another 100 years?

Posted by Janet Sheridan on 11 Feb 08 06:11 PM EST

I have just read (and re-read) the postings above. I am so excited that this issue has garnered so much attention. There are no words to describe the drug problem in the U.S. (I didn't mention alcohol separately as alcohol is a drug.) As a chemical dependency administrator/therapist I look at problem solving as "solution-based" or "resolution-focused". We have spent enough time stating the obvious. Here are some probable/possible scenarios: We have an enormous drug problem in the U.S. We are involved in very unpopular wars in the Middle East. As these wars continue 2 things are happening: 1) We are confiscating money from the drug war to fund the Middle East wars, and 2)The longer our military personnel continue following the commander in chief's policy, living under physical and psychological attack 24/7, we are creating more substance dependent people. The VA is having a very difficult time keeping up with the PTSD referrals, and the post-war suicides, and the increase in domestic violence perpetrated by ex-military personnel. We all agree that if a program isn't working then funds should be withdrawn or re-channeled. This does not seem to be the "bottom-line" policy of our government or we would be out of the Middle East. Substance abuse/dependency becomes an issue when a person cannot find relief/release from continued stressors. Drugs make it possible to relieve that stress - even if it is only a temporary "fix". Perhaps we should be letting the powers that be in on the "news" that removing the stressor, will often (not all of the time) remove the need for stress reduction. What could possibly cause stress in the U.S?? Unemployment, homelessness, being a "working poor", being under-insured, jobs without benefits (jobs that allow you to work just under the required hours for benefits), school drop outs, illegal aliens taking jobs that legal citizens could have. This brings up the topic that "illegals" "contribute" to our monetary bottom line. I feel confident that if you ask any hospital, managed care facility, or anyone providing health/mental health/behavioral health services they all have provisions for serving someone without the ability to pay, albeit flex funds, general funds, etc. Most of this money is filtered dodwn from the government via Medicaid dollars, AKA, T-19 or T-21 monies. So the argument that illegals are "helping" our system is a crock. DId I get off the subject at hand? Not really, as money is misspent, misguided, and "mis-channeled". This is a great forum for venting, but I encourage everyone who responded on this site to contact their respective legislators. We have power in numbers. Use it.

Posted by Jim Russell on 11 Feb 08 03:45 PM EST

The issue should be long-term recovery from the disease of alcohol and/or drug addiction, not preservation and/or expansion of the alcohol and drug industrial complex - the bureaucrat’s and the bureaucracies, which incidentally, is an issue that will be inherited by the next President. In 1969, Dr. Roger Egeberg testified that alcoholism was the nation’s number one health problem. Today (some 39 years and multi-billions of American dollars later) we are still told that alcoholism is the nation’s number one health problem. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that the problem of alcohol and/or drug addiction keeps getting worse while the industry of alcohol and/or drug addiction keeps getting bigger. For many decades now, the prevention spin has been on proper eating habits, yet America today is the most obese nation on the planet. For the most recent decades, the prevention spin has been on alcohol and/or drug addiction while the problem of alcohol and/or drug addiction continues to increase. The winners seem to be the alcohol and/or drug industrial complex (job and acronym development) and the alcohol and/or drug abusers (drugs are now cheaper and much more powerful and there is a greater selection of alcohol for both legal and illegal drinkers). There will never be enough money. The challenge is to do a better job with what we have. The answer is the original intent of the 1970 Hughes Act: the advocacy leaders in local alcoholism and “drug abuse” councils were inspired by a vision of an ever-expanding recovery community - they championed treatment as a special doorway of entry in to that community for the many people who could not make the transition from addiction to recovery on their own. Unfortunately, instead of honoring the Hughes Act, alcohol and/or drug policy seems to favor the “sacred cows” which data suggests that little has been done to reduce a cancer that is eating away at the economic and social foundation of our society. With most of the taxpayer monies going to support the prevention and research elements of the alcohol and/or drug industrial complex (more of the same), little is left over for the programs that do work - treatment and community support for recovery. The enthusiasm for change in today’s presidential election is a result of animosity towards the assorted special interest (industrial) groups controlling public policy. Perhaps it is time for similar change in America’s alcohol and/or drug policy?

Posted by Steve on 11 Feb 08 01:46 PM EST

Until today I believed that drugs and alcohol were the real terrorists in our society. They have destroyed millions of productive lives and families all across America. Substance use continues to kill our children every day due to lack of funding for prevention,education and treatment in our schools and communities. The granting authorities for these programs are really the ones to be blamed if they blindly invest in treatments without knowing exactly what they are buying and fail to supervise what they are paying for. There are plenty of successful, evidence-based programs out there. Why should all programs be punished because of others' failures? We all know that the magnitude of these budget cuts is not the result of poor outcomes. I see the positive changes every day in those that have been given sufficient resources to achieve and maintain sobriety. No one ASKS or WANTS to be addicted. It's not a choice... it's a brain disease that is insidiously consuming our country far beyond what any terrorist attack ever could. I find it incomprehensibe that anyone in our government could believe that pulling back the funding on treatment and prevention is the answer unless he or she lives in a cave and never reads the newspapers. Not investing in the behavioral health of this nation's most valuable asset should be considered an act of self-destruction as a form of terrorism in its own right!

Posted by Frank Winkler on 11 Feb 08 12:23 PM EST

It appears a few thoughts are in order. Why is the administration cutting funding? They propose such cuts every year, and every year, it seems, funds are reinstated after massive concerted letter-writing, e-mail, and phone call campaigns. But the budget this year, and our government's red ink ledgers, threatens to break all records. We are fighting an unpopular war in the Middle East. We have an uncertain economy in the face of increasing oil prices, countering the terrorist threat, worsening employment, financial crises in the real estate sector, and an uncertain stock market-- and all of this (and more) in an election year. How important is substance abuse-- treatment, intervention, enforcement/ interdiction, prevention-- in comparison? Writing letters and organizing protests etc thru CADCA, et al, may well help to reinstate at least the lion's share of the cuts. But instead of crouching defensively, we need to take a serious look at the problem of substance abuse and its many tentacles. The truth is, we do not appear (at least on its face) to be doing a very good job. Stats, studies and trends indicate that abuse continues at alarming levels. Recidivism rates are disappointing; our criminal justice system speaks volumes about the impact of the problem on law enforcement, the courts and prison-- all growing and unabated. What do we really know about causation? How do we counter it effectively? How do we finally address prevention seriously and effectively? Like the proverbial Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, it appears current efforts are barely able to restrain and contain the problem. NIDA has spent significant millions in research just on PSAs to help prevent substance abuse-- nothing yet has worked as expected. We cannot simply continue to "keep on keepin' on" if the problem at the same time continues to grow and worsen, with out expecting finally some form of sanction from the governing body that funds our efforts. Certainly we can argue that it would be oh, so much worse, if we weren't already doing what we do-- and there is considerable truth in that. Even so, we appear collectively not to be terribly good at it, all the same. We can either choose to remain in our defensive crouch ("You don't understand-- we do good work and we could do so much more if we just had the money...") Or, we can make a concverted effort to acknowledge our weaknesses and work aggressively to seek improvement. As an example, we now have an aresenal of science/research/ outcome-based prevention tools, complemented by DARE Programs, community coalitions, collaborative efforts, etc. If they're so effective and successful, then why are we not seeing real and effective outcomes, i.e., reduction in substance abuse? Its time to reassess and develop new and more effective strategies to complement and replace those currently in use. If we do not, we can certainly expect to see our funding cut and elminiated as still more studies, GAO investigations, etc., conclude that we're just not getting the job done....

Posted by Cait on 11 Feb 08 11:15 AM EST

When do we as a country start taking care of our own hurting masses? We desperately need someone that knows how to make things happen, is willing to do what it takes and yes a heart to go along with it all. It certainly isn't Bush!

Posted by Sharon on 11 Feb 08 09:56 AM EST

While it is apparent that prevention is an important factor in addressing the disease of addiction, it seems ludicrous to cut funding to those in need of treatment. Anyone with any knowledge about this heinous disease knows that far too many children (or those who are targeted for prevention) are living with parents or caregivers who need treatment. It doesn't seem to make sense to expect any level of success of prevention programs provided to children without providing treatment for parents in need. The family dynamic of this disease is so profound -- anyone who provides prevention and/or treatment is well aware of this fact; however, clearly those who are responsible for shifting or reducing funds is not!

Posted by Betsy on 11 Feb 08 09:45 AM EST

There is never really one good answer to the problem of substance and alcohol addiction. As a treatment counselor, not an alcoholic or addict, I work on the front like daily with people struggling to get help. The problems rarely cease when the clients get clean. It becomes a combination of being able to secure aftercare treatment, medical care, housing, employment, satisfying legal consequences, all while trying not to get frustrated with a system that does not work without everyone to do their jobs. I work in a facility for men that is funded through some of these SAMSHA dollars. It is laughable to say that someone can get a secure foot on rehabilitation in 21 days but that is about all they can get funding for, sometimes 28 days. The first week of this is usually spent trying to get the client past detox and withdrawal symptoms. It is frustrating for me and for the others that work with me. We work hard to make a difference and definitely are not here for the money. There is little to no money to be made when working for a non-profit organization. But seeing what can happen when we provide EVIDENCED-BASED treatment modalities, creating a person-centered plan, not a cookie-cutter plan, and incorporating some faith and hope back into the human spirit is an amazing site to behold. I wish everyone could get the opportunity to see what really goes on behind the walls of a treatment center and maybe they would not be so jaded against this system that does help hundreds of thousands, not just the rich and famous. Paying more for treatment does not guarantee you good treatment. The person has to want treatment, not just be able to pay for treatment.

Posted by SMH on 11 Feb 08 09:00 AM EST

Just as you monitor what,where and how your money is spent in your home so it should be with our government. Any program that is ineffective should be gone. Monies need to go to prevention inlcuding and most importantly parental programs. It is and always will be about the parents and what they are or are not teaching their children. If you educate the parents along with their children the reduction in substance abuse would make an impact like this county has never seen. For those currently suffering through addictions, it is a hard road which unfortunaly they have chosen by poor decisions they made.This is not to say programs in this area should be abandoned, it needs efficiency. Recovery is not an easy road either, but when there is a will there is always a way. People have to want to recover and throwing money into ineffective programs is not the answer.

Posted by Alan on 11 Feb 08 08:51 AM EST

Accountability is part of sobriety. Maybe blame should be shared with those who created treatment modalities that are phony, drain money, are based on feeling good, and cannot be justified with successful outcomes. And maybe some of the blame should rest on the backs of those who supported such programs and agreed to fund them. Sooner or later, a skunk begins to smell like a skunk. Anyone active in this field knows, unless they rest comfortably in denial, that money is used to fund inaffective programs, taking away from those in need. We need accountability not only for the programs funded but for those running them. I have to wonder why those who commented before me found it necessary to attack President Bush personally and his policies and actions that have nothing to do with addiction, or engage in some right-wing conspiracy attacks that he is only doing this to make it harder on a probable new Democratic President. I encourage us to stay focus, fight the good fight, stay true to the core issues of treatment and recovery, and focus on what we can do to improve the lives of those we serve, understanding what is within our power and what is not. Attacking a President because you dislike the war, the fact that he is a conservative, a Christian, rich, a republican, or for what ever other reason, is what is truly ridiculous and counter productive. We have come to far to act like children. Vote, do what is within your power, remain civil yet assertive, and let's continue to fight the good fight.

Posted by Jim Snider on 11 Feb 08 08:18 AM EST

I believe it is time for us to look at other sources of revenue to intervene in the negative impact alcohol abuse and addiction has on our communities. State and local taxes on the purchase and consumption of alcohol products, with the funds raised going to preventioin and treatment would seem the most reasonable. As professionals we know that prevention is the key to steming the problems our society has with alcohol abuse and dependency. We need a consistant flow of funds to have a lasting impact on the problem of abuse and addiction of alcohol. Taxes on the product would provide that consistant flow of funds and as progress was made funding would deminish because of decreased sales. We can ill afford to continue to be a politcal pawn when so much is at stake.

Posted by Dan Baran on 11 Feb 08 01:50 AM EST

For an individual who is purportedly - recovering, Mr. Bush's unwillingness to adequately fund treatment and prevention programming is short of criminal. If program efficacy were the only criterion by which programs were funded then the cornerstones of the war on drugs - interdiction and incarceration would have been abandoned long ago. Treatment (absent the politics) works; well designed and implemented prevention works better; collaborations that combine both works best.

Posted by Linda on 10 Feb 08 10:48 AM EST

I was not against Bush until recently when I finally learned the TRUTH. Doesn't anyone see what he is really doing? His only true concern is the "military" and "law enforcement." Who will this totalitarian shift ultimately be used against? He could not care less if "our people" are strung out on drugs and alcohol--they're easier to control that way. Wake up! Wake up! Read "The End of America," & A Brave New World."

Posted by G. HOLLOWAY on 09 Feb 08 06:32 PM EST

I can not believe our country is still ignorant when it comes to the reality of treating addiction. Maybe ignorant is the wrong word. STUPID is probably the correct word.

Posted by Sunday on 09 Feb 08 02:50 PM EST

Have a drug problem? No problem, as long as you are rich, a celeb or a politician, then you can afford to pay for "treatment". Have you visited your local "treatment" center? With a waiting list of more than 30 days long, could you keep your child safe until they got in? Solution-Bring our troops home now-let them serve our country by fighting the war on crime here in our country. Stop illegal immigrant drug dealers, arrest drug dealers, then go after the drug user (if there are any left after all the drug dealers are locked up) and then deal with the doctors that are handing out prescritions like candy. And...btw...campaign ads that say..dont do drugs...the kids are already high...the ones that aren't--can't read, the ones that can read, are latch key kids that are at the boys and girls club who aren't hearing it anyway...so who are those ads directed at? Better to put that money in the schools, in treatment, in law enforcement, in the community.

Posted by Sunday on 09 Feb 08 02:27 PM EST

Only the rich, celebs, and politicians will be able to seek help for their "addiction" soon! This nation is in a crisis with addiction and to cut off funding at this time is the real crime. I vote for...pull our men and women out of Iraq and bring them home to fight the real war here...the war on drugs...we them here at home to help us fight! We need those military dollars spent here in our country fighting our battles-when did our politicians forget who they were representing?

Posted by Crystal on 09 Feb 08 02:24 PM EST

Of course Bush, would pull a move like this right before we finally get rid of him. He is trying to make it harder on Obama when he enters the office. Another one of Bush's mistakes that he will need to clean up. Bush is scared, because he knows that the Democrats are going to win, and change this nation for the better. He needs to realize where the money should be placed, and put the nation's prorities before his own selfish motives. If you ask me, this is a real cowardly move on his behalf. Everyone who voted for him should be ashamed. He is truely the worst president to enter the oval office. The war needs to end, and the problems in America need to be fixed. And probably the biggest problems everyone faces on a day to day basis involve mental health issues and drugs and alcohol abuse. How do we solve these problems with less money? Think about it for a second. I thought the objective of being the president was to better our nation, not make it worse. I'm just so happy that he can never be president again!!!!!

Posted by Jane Armstrong on 09 Feb 08 12:24 PM EST

I am delighted and relieved to read the comments posted here. I have 2 children in the process of recovering from precription addictions which they acquired during "casual, recreational" exposure. Both began using BEFORE they were teenagers and our efforts to intervene and rehabilitate were anything but easy. It is silly and indulgent to believe throwing money at programs that profess to rehabilitate but do not provide evidence based outcomes are an option. There is a large, informed army of folks who have been on the front lines of this very ineffective "war on drugs". We KNOW, first hand what's at stake and what's not working. Demanding accountability and joining together to work FOR the changes needed will serve our need to state the truth, and the futures of those unable to advocate for themselves. As an addict most people can operate in survival mode, at best. From the place of recovery there is a wealth of wisdom and compassion to make real substantial change. We are greater than the sum of our individual selves. Let's not take no for an answer, and collectively work FOR resposible solutions.

Posted by FRANK on 09 Feb 08 09:45 AM EST

Most of these recovery programs are fronts for people who have made bad choices and have developed their own industry because they like the courage to get back in the real work force or because the have condemned themselves by calling themselves addicts and alcoholics and created their own world. other people bad choices should not be funded by the government for treatment. but on the other hand our kids deserve the right to be taught how to steer clear of bad choices so they won't become these types of adults. if we are going fund any programs they should be primary prevention efforts to stop the behavior beforen not afterwards.

Posted by Larey on 08 Feb 08 09:56 PM EST

lost in spelling - should be ERADICATION

Posted by Larey on 08 Feb 08 09:51 PM EST

Reduction in funding for alcohol and drug treatment is tantamount to giving up on funding for treatment and research for aids. The disease of addiction and alcoholism (both one in the same) effects over 20 million families in this country. We need to pull it out by the roots. Spend money on treatment, not jails and law enforcement. Let us hope that whoever ends up in office in 2009 will make the changes to not only help with the eradacatopm of the disease, but unite our country.

Posted by Ruth on 08 Feb 08 09:27 PM EST

I think that it's a great idea to put an extra 100 million into the SDFSC's program for prevention efforts. Where better to focus these efforts but in our schools and with our kids?

Posted by Julia on 08 Feb 08 09:13 PM EST

So I guess this money is going to Iraq to buy more weapons to kill more people!

Posted by Dana on 08 Feb 08 09:10 PM EST

Fiscal prudence dictates treating the disease of addiction rather than warehouse its victims in criminal justice facilities. SAMHSA grant money, an RCSP Program placed me on firm footing in recovery. Now I pay taxes as a productive citizen rather than being a burden to my community. Pay now or pay much more along the way,not just fiscally, but socially as well. My mission is to help end the blight of drugs on our country.The 30 year war on drugs is a failure,a war on our children. Treatment Works. Try adequate funding and see.

Posted by Dr G on 08 Feb 08 09:01 PM EST

Same tune different day. Off to war in support of monied interests while good people do without.Criminal is the word.

Posted by John on 08 Feb 08 09:00 PM EST

Perhaps we do need to reevaluate how the programs are managed and funded. Perhaps we do need to reevaluate how we provide prevention and treatment. Yet the argument to slash these institutional and local programs w/out a clear understanding the potential outcome is ludicris. Our schools will definately become less safe. Our childrens correctional institutions will be breaking at the seams in short order. New prisons and the staff to man them will have to be built and maintained. Our streets will become overrun by the ill and substance dependant. I don't believe the cuts are being made because of the services being provided otherwise he would of cut the faith base services as well. Professionally he will set back the field many years. I wonder if he would of better served the Citizens of America if he experienced evidenced base treatment rather then a faith experience into "sobriety". It does appear as though he views treatment providers and those who are ill citizens with a lower case c. I only hope that the next Administration does not have to cut more.

Posted by Chuck on 08 Feb 08 07:06 PM EST

SAMHSA is a bloated government bureaucracy whose grants move through so many hands on the path to providing agencies that a fraction of the money does any good anyway. The recipients of SAMHSA's largess are primarily government employees and politicians along the way. I share the chagrin that more money is being spent on war and a broken, immoral judicial system. Too bad Bush can't just reduce taxes.

Posted by ddbeach on 08 Feb 08 06:44 PM EST

I think it's about time some funding of prevention programs that don't work gets cut. It shouldn't go to defense spending, but just because the name drug, alcohol, prevention or mental health is attatched to something evryone who works in the field screams when funding is cut. When money gets tighter, inaffective programs should have funding reduced, or eliminated and programs that have shown they work, should stay.

Posted by Bob Olson on 08 Feb 08 06:23 PM EST

Sounds rather hypocritical to me that President Bush would come across as an advocate a few weeks ago and cut the heart out of essential programs that have a proven record of reducing addictions. We are going to pay for this short sightedness in the end.

Posted by Sharon on 08 Feb 08 06:03 PM EST

The only way we will see change in 2009 is for each of us to STUDY the candidates and KNOW what they stand for before we cast our vote. Not voting is not a choice-it is just giving a vote to the person you really DON"T want.

Posted by Eddie deRoulet on 08 Feb 08 05:28 PM EST

Would a vote for Sen Clinton or Sen Obama change this? I would hope so! Write your congressman or senator and let them know how you feel!

Posted by Mike in Washington State on 08 Feb 08 05:07 PM EST

Bush is once again showing us that he and the conservatives have no clue as to the complexity of the problem. Rather than fund treatment, he fights the crime that results from it.

Posted by Becca6296 in New Hampshire on 08 Feb 08 04:44 PM EST

Guess he had enough money to recover, at church, get out of a dui, is recovered and spirirtually fit enought to let the rest of the people suffering rot.

Posted by Brenda on 08 Feb 08 04:40 PM EST

Once again, Bush demonstrates his total ignorance regarding the true needs of the American people, and his arrogant commitment to a senseless war. Hurry January 2009!

Posted by K THURBER on 08 Feb 08 04:29 PM EST

I would like to see the PART report on the war in Iraq. Talk about dumping money into an ineffective stratey.

Posted by Bob on 08 Feb 08 04:24 PM EST

Sounds like we are returning to the days of volunteer effort with a bit of spiritual oversight by the Bush lead advocacy of Access to Recovery. How can we get the congress, the executive branch and the conservative bureaucrats to VOLUNTEER to serve the nation as we do in the trenches. Now is the time to come to the aid of your country.

Posted by Jami on 08 Feb 08 03:53 PM EST

How does governmment ever expect to win the "war on drugs" if it's the only one they do NOT fund?!

Senate Approves Federal Drug Budget

Bush's Budget Plan Cuts Treatment, Prevention Funding

House Budget Committee Approves Treatment, Prevention Increases

Federal Drug Budget Defies Policy Priorities, Critic Contends

SAMHSA's Strategic Prevention Framework

NIDA Networking Project